1. With regard to the order of succession, the only thing specified in the Constiution is the Vice President being 1st in line, the rest is set by federal law so the Congress can change it.

2. As to the Obama campaign being briefed on foreign policy, the Bush administration has actually been giving McCain Obama and while she was in the race Clinton briefings for some time now.

They have not made a major deal of it because both they (Bush) and the campaigns felt it was important to do it, not to get press for it.

So actually Bush and Cheney have been doing what is right DLS.

I chuckled to myself when envisioning Obama and his VP and team not only in the White House but at Crawford, and Obama and his team being met by obviously conservative Lynne Cheney (such as at the Vice Presidential mansion). Hee, hee.

The article was accompanied by two illustrations depicting giving and receiving a baton and I thought of an appropriate illustration a new President Obama could use, or some of his fans, or the media: a white hand, in the rear, passing a red, white, and blue baton to a black hand, in front.

What if the US congress was meeting and the Senate was meeting and the President and VP and the cabinet was meeting and someone slipped a briefcase Nuke into the city and took them all out.

Whose in charge now?

It is important to note the political underpinnings of the original line. In 1792, with Federalists and Democratic-Republicans (yes, that was their name) at each other's throats, the Federalists did not want the Secretary of State to be at the top of the list of succession because Thomas Jefferson was Secretary of State and the titular leader of the D-Rs. And so succession went to Congressional leaders after the veep.

Some of my best friends are old, too, but I think age is an irrelevant determinant in whether there should be a new constitutional amendment. I also don't think the 9/11 “climate” is a good enough reason for a new amendment and concentration of powers concerns are a bit of a red herring even in the Age of Bush.

The thought of a dingbat like Margaret Spellings, who is 13th in line as Secretary of Education, becoming president is scary, but the present system is adequate and whether the republic is thrown into chaos does not rest exclusively on who would become president in the event of accidents and/or deaths.

Finally, getting a constitutional amendment passed about anything would be difficult. As it is, the Secretary of Homeland Security is technically 15th in line but would not be able to serve as president because a bill adding him to the line was never passed.

I am confident that these questions will continue to be debated in political science classes but that will be about it. And should be.

I did not know, for example, how often the line of succession has been changed in the history of the republic. Once, for example, the line was retained in the executive.

You make a good point with regard to the need to revisit this law in the 9-11 climate…when taking out two just individuals could throw the government into chaos.

Ironically, while Slate is obsessed with anti-GOP paranoia…I think the idea of a Speaker becoming president – with his/her years of control of a major part of the Legislative branch – combined with total control of the Executive branch is a far greater threat to the republic than Condi becoming president.

Separation of powers is “separation” for a very good reason. Like the Roman republic, the Founders were suspicous of too much power in one person's hands.

Sadly, the Slate article does not perceive this real threat of concentration of power…and focuses on paranoia about Bush. Ah well…

But a fascinating problem nonetheless!